#117 - Matt Dillahunty vs Eric Lounsbery

Special Debate show: Matt Dillahunty and Eric Lounsbery debate with David Smalley as moderator - Is there sufficient evidence to believe in the God of the Bible?
On today’s show, David Smalley - @davidcsmalley, Matt Dillahunty - @Matt_Dillahunty, Eric Lounsbery - @ericlounsbery.

Eric’s opening statement: Premises: 1) Existence does not come from non-existence. 2) Something exists. 3) Something is eternal. 4) The universe is not eternal. 5)Whatever is eternal transcends the universe. 6) Whatever is eternal is the source of all things created. 7) Whatever is eternal is the source of all power existing. 8) Whatever is eternal is intelligent. 9) Lawrence Krauss vs. Hamza Tzortzis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSwJuOPG4FI. Conclusion: Something exists that is eternal, transcendent, the source of all things created, all-powerful and intelligent. The atheist has to suppress: 1) An inner testimony of the existence of a god. 2) powerful urge to ascribe moral culpability to people who commit evil. 3) War against any feeling of guilt.4) Inner testimony of having greater value than other types of animals. Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U.

Wow Eric.... You called up the show acting like you had something, and could "trounce" Matt or any other atheist. Not only did you get THOROUGHLY trounced yourself, you actually detracted from your own side. And as ridiculous and nonsensical, self contradictory and self disproving as the Christian side already is on it's own, that's really saying something. I knew it was going to be a total landslide in Matt's favor from your opening, with your ridiculous handful of premises, but it just got worse and worse each time you spoke. I also love how this Eric dumbass, hijacked Matt's time more than once, taking most of it up, but would cry at Matt anytime his responses took more than a few seconds with a "NOOOO THIS IS MY TIME!!" sort of interjection. What a joke.

Eric Lounsbery was an embarrassment. How ridiculous. He told Matt that he could easily win a debate when he called in at the Atheist Experience...but this attempt to justify his faith is just ridiculous. All he provides is assertions. Nothing but assertions. He provided nothing that would counter the argument of simple, everyday, recognizable proof. If Eric is under the impression that this is was a good display of Christian justification, he is either totally misled, ever-so-slightly imbalanced or completely brainwashed.

The tactics and claims of Eric Lounsbery is apparently nothing new, but basically the same thing he's been doing for at least nine years.

In a november 12, 2005 post on the blog No God Zone (for the full article, go here: http://bit.ly/QjyUDx), Eric claimed he "debated 'notable atheists' but the people he mentions are not people I know."

The rest sounds eerily like a recap of the Matt and Eric debate: "He started out with a list of assertions. This assertions ranged all across the board when it came to their subject matter. (..) He said he had only 8 but it was more than that because he then made assertions based on his previous assertions. (...) he made about 25 such assertions in total."

"In addition Lounsbery kept referring to his collection of assertions as 'evidence'."

"(...) Lounsbery was particularly insistent in demanding alternative theories in fields where he knows his opponent is not a specialist."

"He asserted that atheists in fact know that the proof for the fundamentalist Christian God is overwhelming and all around them. Thus he immediately asserts dishonesty on the part of anyone who disagrees with him."

I love it when apologists bring the unbroken nerrative argumet, like Eric did in 1:54:30. Religious Jews bring it very often.

It never fails to amuse me, pointing out 2nd Kings 22-23, where even disregarding the obvious thelogical 180 performed on a mass scale (contradicting the "you can't convince a large group to believe a fairytale" argument), it specifically reads that the nerrative was broken.

Eric has done NOTHING but regurgitate the same logical fallacies all apologist spew. I almost wanted to say, "You know what, Eric? If your god is so real, then tell him to get his fat-fucking ass down here RIGHT NOW! Where is he?!?

Hellloooooooooo????

Eric sounded like a babbling idiot...please don't have him back on here again

Matt said he would only do a debate if there were a before and after poll to see who the audience thought had won (after Eric pissed him off by not being honest as a call in on the AE show) - too bad this venu did not allow such a vote.